simply global warming is overrated by the world media , it has no scientific evidence and developed countries such as USA is using the global warming propaganda to keep the undeveloped countries (especially in Africa) from using their natural resources .

We have a member here, username Citizenschallenge, who takes it very seriously to refute the various absurd arguments put forward against the claims of anthropogenic global warming.

Hint: it’s well established science that global warming is happening and that we are responsible. If you’re hearing otherwise, it probably means you’re listening to people being paid by the oil industry to tell you lies. I imagine there are many such people in Saudi Arabia as there are in the US.

We have a member here, username Citizenschallenge, who takes it very seriously to refute the various absurd arguments put forward against the claims of anthropogenic global warming.

Hint: it’s well established science that global warming is happening and that we are responsible. If you’re hearing otherwise, it probably means you’re listening to people being paid by the oil industry to tell you lies. I imagine there are many such people in Saudi Arabia as there are in the US.

They are doing evil work.

you’re kidding ,right ?
first of all , watch the documentary for yourself then decide your own opinion , there are scientists in the documentary who worked for the UN and the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) and their research were turned down because they deviated from the mainstream scientific view of Global Warming .

second , I don’t think they are paid money to tell us lies, actually it’s the opposite scientists who say global warming is true are the ones who get paid

third , scientists in S.A are following the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming ,so they say what the UN is saying

oh and i think you missed an important link when you provided that Wikipedia link

I’ve stopped bothering arguing with the global warming deniers. Since they are all at least forty years younger than I am, I just suggest that they write out their beliefs, date them, and put them away. Then make a note to look at what they wrote, say thirty years from now. They can either bask in their correctness or claim they were given lies. Meanwhile, since I don’t plan to live to 110, I won’t worry about it.

Oh, and as a retired chemist who’s looked at the claims and supposed evidence on both sides, I’m fascinated by how facts can be twisted, ignored or fabricated.

That list is just about as relevant as if it said 1000 scientists say that animals don’t need oxygen to live, and then you find out that all of the scientists are paleontologists.
If you looked up the list of ‘scientists’ who claim global warming is a hoax, you would find that very, very few of them are actually trained in the field of climatology. Even if you take just the number of scientist, the number claiming a global warming hoax is a minute fraction of the total number scientists in the world.

I would not seek out a proctologist to treat my brain tumor just because s/he is also a doctor. Only a fool would do so, and the proctologist would be guilty of malpractice…and the results would be predictably disastrous.

Signature

Church; where sheep congregate to worship a zombie on a stick that turns into a cracker on Sundays…

I’ve stopped bothering arguing with the global warming deniers. Since they are all at least forty years younger than I am, I just suggest that they write out their beliefs, date them, and put them away. Then make a note to look at what they wrote, say thirty years from now. They can either bask in their correctness or claim they were given lies. Meanwhile, since I don’t plan to live to 110, I won’t worry about it.

Oh, and as a retired chemist who’s looked at the claims and supposed evidence on both sides, I’m fascinated by how facts can be twisted, ignored or fabricated.

Occam

I see you are an old man ! huh i’ve noticed a lot of old guys in this forum , anyway let me ask you this .

in the documentary they proof that there are a relationship between the number of solar spots and the temperature of the earth, what would you say about this claim as a “retired chemist” ?

I would say, as you should know with a BSc in physics, is that almost all real systems are affected by a great many inputs. Your body’s temperature is thought to be relatively constant, however, if you’ve just eaten a meal, if you have an infection, if you are stanidintg the sun, if you check it in the morning as you awaken, just after you’ve exercised, when you go to bed at night, you’ll see that it varies significantly. When Krakatoa erupted in the 19th century, the earth’s temperature dropped significantly for a few years, no matter whether or not there were sunspots. Now that we’ve introduced large amounts of fluorocarbons (not ever naturally produced) into the atmosphere, the amount of ultraviolet radiation reaching the surface of the earth has increased (again, nothing to do with sunspots). This last has already tended to kill algae at the ocean’s surface down about one or two centimeters. That means that this major source of carbon dioxide absorption isn’t quite as efficient as it used to be. And more freons are still being added to the atmosphere.

So, sure, I can accept that sunspots are one of the myriad factors that affect earth temperature, but one cannot ignore all the others. The problem isn’t that a huge amount of the meteorilogical environment is part of a natural system. That’s not going to change, but if humans add a small new factor, it can cause the whole system to shift significantly.

Consider that for millions of years organic material sank to the bottom of the oceans, got covered over and compressed, and slowly turned to oil and coal. In the last two hundred years we have unearthed an unbelievable amount of those, burned them and dumped the CO2 into the atmosphere. At the same time, we’ve been chopping down forests to build cities and farms, so we have been reducing the earth’s ability to convert the CO2 back into organics.

there are scientists in the documentary who worked for the UN and the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) and their research were turned down because they deviated from the mainstream scientific view of Global Warming .

second , I don’t think they are paid money to tell us lies, actually it’s the opposite scientists who say global warming is true are the ones who get paid

third , scientists in S.A are following the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming ,so they say what the UN is saying

oh and i think you missed an important link when you provided that Wikipedia link

Excuse me, that’s a silly argument. And no, I didn’t miss that link. It’s completely irrelevant. There are scientists who deny that the speed of light is a constant. There are scientists who deny evolution.

Given any established scientific fact, there will be some fringe scientist who denies it. If you look to fringe scientists to tell you what to believe, you are a crank. And in this case you are looking generally to people being paid by oil companies.

And BTW, no scientists are paid to ‘say global warming is true’. There’s no money in that. There are no huge companies paying out tens of millions of dollars a year to corrupt scientists into asserting falsehoods about global warming. The UN certainly doesn’t.

I watched that swindle show a long time ago. I am not in the mood to watch it again to point out obvious flaws in their so called reasoning. But you can forget about PROOF on the global warming issue. There is no PROOF about this as in mathematics. This is about probabilities involving billions of people and ONE PLANET and there is no spare planet.

That is the REAL PROBLEM right there. This is something that we cannot afford to get wrong. But it is obvious that there are too many STUPID people for it to possibly be gotten right.

Oreskes (University of California, San Diego) and Conway (NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory) trace the ways in which a handful of politically conservative scientists, with strong ties to particular industries, have “played a disproportionate role in debates about controversial questions”. These scientists have challenged the scientific consensus about the dangers of cigarette smoking, the effects of acid rain, the existence of the ozone hole, and the existence of anthropogenic climate change.